Bradman debate continues...

Firstly, I apologise to everyone who wishes this debate would just go away but I, like others, read this story a while back and instantly disagreed with Dr. Rohde's interpretation of the data.

I watched a TV interview where Dr. Rohde said Tendulkar had just crept ahead of Bradman because Bradman was 4000 runs better than the average player in his time and Tendulkar was now about 4100 runs ahead of the average player in his. Simple?

This is my problem with the interpretation.
Bradman 6996 runs
average player 2996 runs.

Bradman scored more than double the runs (234%) of his era's average batsman.

Tendulkar
16000 runs
average player 11000

Tendulkar's career runs are approx 145% of the average batsman's in the modern era. (I'm being generous to Tendulkar here - Dr. Rodhe only gave Tendulkar 100 runs more than Bradman - im making the difference 1000 to account for future runs scored.)

A previous poster referred to Bradman's 'mythical average of 99.94'. I also took issue with that - it is no myth - that remains his career average.

I mainly wrote this post to show a different interpretation of the same data used by Dr. Rohde. The careers of Bradman and Tendulkar are more accurately explored using my simple percentage comparision, rather than other statistical methods.

Never trust an economist.... thats what im saying.